Model comparison
Llama 3.2 90B vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Arcee AISummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 37.6 to 11.1.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 27.5 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1381 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 27.3% | — |
Reasoning Llama 3.2 90B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.4% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1350 |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.5 | — |
Math Trinity Large Thinking leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1366 |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.4% | — |
Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 41% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1360 |
| MMLU | 80.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1000 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1373 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1357 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1334 |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 90B better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 90B and Trinity Large Thinking share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 90B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.